Tralee

I just provide my recent correspondence as an encouragement to others, and as an initial statement that the Companion Animals Act NSW is too harsh and stringent and therefore we need to begin lobbying to have the Law changed and pursue greater protections for our dogs and DOs. Regards

So familiar. It used to be a common occurrence around here. People wound the dogs up, and also wound up their reputation. Things are much calmer since I dragged the rangers sorry arse into court. My evil dogs are now 'rosey' and that's the way I like it. Here's hoping you get on top of things.

Maybe we could have less of it here, then. Here you go.

Anna Albrigo, and Selvaspina Kennels, of course.

Anyone like to have a go at judging between these? Maybe this is why we have International Judges at Royals

Just further to the earlier discussion, when I have an example with a judge putting their hands on a Maremma at Show in Europe I will display it. In the meantime.

I hope all goes well Mystiqview. I have recently provided an arthrodesis for a dogs wrist. I think the treatment for your dog is odd. I had a dislocated shoulder and they operated to repair the cuff to prevent the shoulder continuously dislogding. Anyway, good on you for putting the dog first.

Ah well back on topic. Italian Champion Pastrano

So have I but the dogs in question did not exhibit very sound temperament at that time. Because of the judge or because of the dog Apart from contradicting yourself about putting hands on the dogs, you have your own recurring theme when you reply to me. Are you part of the solution or do you just set out to slag off others who are advocating for their own breed? Do you own and exhibit Maremma, or did you not see that they cannot be lumped together with other breeds and approached in a generalist fashion?

I think the point you missed is that they are in fact titled, meaning enough judges deemed them worthy and did not non award. Surely a judge who could not approach a dog becuase of fears related to temperament, would non award. so have I but the dogs in question did not exhibit very sound temperament at that time. Because of the judge or because of the dog No no no, you miss the issue. I am saying that the corrrect temperament for Maremma is "wary of Strangers". To put it another way, we should not be able to use the word 'friendly' to describe a Maremma. Being aggressive and not being friendly are miles apart. So, when they are judged they should be judged on their 'wariness with strangers'. This is what I see happening in Italy. The Judges are asking to the dogs to display their working dog temperament. Temperament is part of the standard, and should be included in the judging criteria. Conversely, the dogs should not be called aggressive for displaying their wariness of strangers.

Kudos to the Open Judge on Saturday who ignored the Steward and extended his examination of Flynnch who would not let the Judge run his hands over his back. The Judge kept flicking his wrist behind Flynnch's ear. However, the judge allowed Flynnch time, and the dog approached the judge, sniffed his leg, then allowed the judge to pat him. The Judge then told me he was going to give him Breed and quipped the Steward saying the dog is not aggressive. Flynnch went into group but was not good enough however he backed up for Open in Group and was awarded the Class over other dogs who had their titles. I was so proud. When Flynnch went into the Champion Show the Judge blind-sided him, and rushed at him holding out her hand. I had already spoken to the judge as Flynnch had a wound on his rear from being in kennel in Queensland for two weeks and would not let anyone, including myself, touch him. We agreed to withdraw the dog on this occasion. But neither Judge approached the dog fairly. This of course is my point. I should point out that there was a Red Setter in the adjacent ring which was putting on a protracted display of disapproval. Flynnch did nothing even remotely similar in either show.

I own Australian Champion Allarme Arctic Gem and Australian Champion Schaferden Celtic Sun who I personally titled over a number of years. On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, in the Lismore Local Court four Dangerous Dog Declarations were revoked because the Lismore Council conceded they had mistakenly put notifications on my four dogs which are not dangerous. I don't let people treat me like an idiot which is why I spent $3500 in Barister fees and paid a further $17 a day to keep a dog kennelled in Queensland to protect my dogs from the kind of attitude that you feel is somehow not slanderous or does not deem me to be bereft of the cognitive function necessary to discern the correct approach and handling of a Maremma from an incorrect one. Maybe you need to give me the benefit of the doubt and consider that perhaps I actually do have some integrity and a valid complaint. I've seen more than one judge have difficulties with dogs and not just with Maremmas either. And what does titling 2 dogs over a number of years prove in a rare breed? With the small amount of Maremma that get shown all across Australia it is simply a case of going to 17 shows and picking up your 6 points (barring non awarding) It is not exactly hard to title a rare breed, as most people with any rare breed will tell you getting the group and in show awards is what you aim for. And so this thread is about, umm, what exactly?? Its not titled: "Have a go!" It is exactly because Maremma in Australia are not getting BIS whereas in Italy, Europe, Sth America etc they are. If fact, they are earning BIS at World Shows. There are two aspects as to why this is so. The dogs don't have merit which is questionable. And the Judges are not putting them up. Allarme Arctic Gem earned her fair share of Class in Group Awards. She made another breeder cry on her first contested show when she beat the other dogs. We also regularly exhibited against other Maremma. What does that say to your 6 point champion claim?

I own Australian Champion Allarme Arctic Gem and Australian Champion Schaferden Celtic Sun who I personally titled over a number of years. On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, in the Lismore Local Court four Dangerous Dog Declarations were revoked because the Lismore Council conceded they had mistakenly put notifications on my four dogs which are not dangerous. I don't let people treat me like an idiot which is why I spent $3500 in Barrister fees and paid a further $17 a day to keep a dog kennelled in Queensland to protect my dogs from the kind of attitude that you feel is somehow not slanderous or does not deem me to be bereft of the cognitive function necessary to discern the correct approach and handling of a Maremma from an incorrect one. Maybe you need to give me the benefit of the doubt and consider that perhaps I actually do have some integrity and a valid complaint. I've seen more than one judge have difficulties with dogs and not just with Maremmas either.

I have the same view and I have stated it before several times. But, twice last Saturday I had two different Judges present themselves as a threat to my puppy boy. It beggars belief really. Judges should be au fait with the Maremma temperament, "wary of strangers." They can't just jump on the dog and expect it to submit. The Maremma has to be befriended and deferred to if someone wishes to greet it. It is the Maremma's decision whether someone is going to handle it and judges should understand that. They were bred to keep thieves off the lambs and how many thieves do you think there are in Italy?

Hmmm. Well then we are heading for a supposedly "working dog" that flounces around the show ring, licks the judge and then lets them pat their belly while frolicking on their back and begging for treats. I think I know what the Italians would think of that sort of dog and what they might call their handlers. Here, try examining this "Champion" dog's mouth.

Yes, a good question. They may indeed examine them but they do it tentatively. They certainly don't rush them, and then flick their wrist behind their ear or try to stare them down and make them submit. They are a working dog and the Italians test and judge for a working temperament. Maremmas are not dolls. The correct judging technique is something that I want to investigate thoroughly. I have serious reservations about the current approach here in Australia.

A veritable tragedy. I make two points: The dogs were unquestionably dangerous as can be seen from the injuries inflicted. My second point is more nuanced and relates to my own recent introduction to the Dangerous Dog Laws. Existing laws regarding fencing are not adequate to prevent dog attacks. The dogs were not adequately fenced. To prevent such incidents occurring it behooves DO's to securely double-fence their property. Fence laws are an interesting area of law but they are not intended to prevent dog attack. DOs need to go above and beyond basic Council laws. Contradistinctively, my dogs are now double fenced to keep people away from them. Regards

The first photo because it is a Celtic Symbol and the last one are best, IMO

I missed posting this earlier, but better late than never. A South American BIS Champion

well here's a turn up. Judges in Italy, at least, do not touch Maremma when shown in the ring. Quite clearly, this needs to be addressed in this country.

Chicken wings alone, equivalent to the weight recommended for your breed and age. My dogs have an allownace of 600g so they would get 600g of chicken, whether it is wings, legs or frames.

I like three, eight and nine. I think you could do better so I would enjoy looking at the others.

Hi GT. Firstly, I must make the comment that dangerous dogs do exist, I've seen at least one. Secondly, any dog may be precipitated into a dangerous dog situation due to poor management. In NSW, dogs can be declared dangerous at the drop of a hat, so I do not wish to support DOs whose dogs are known to be dangerous, either do I wish to provide excuses for DOs who not do take the responsibility of DO seriously. Lastly, the advice given is an advocacy for the dog/s welfare. 1. Following an incident, either witnessed or reported, the DO can send the dog out of NSW where it is not under the jurisdiction of The NSW Companion Animals Act (1998) The Act. I sent Flynnch to Queensland because he is an absconder and if they wander from property the fine is $5000 once an Intention to Declare Dog Dangerous is received. Fortuitously, the Council could not prosecute Flynnch because the Court has no jurisdiction under The Act for a dog not kept in NSW. 2. I had the two big dogs Temperament Tested by Paw Power and they passed without fault. These reports were sent to Council. 3. I have an excellent Barrister. After an alleged incident, the Ranger will make an appointment to inspect the property. If the dogs are present, the Ranger may inform the DO that they intend to issue an "Intention to Declare Dog/s Dangerous Notification". This is virtually the same as a Dangerous Dog Declaration except it is stayed for 28 days while the DO can prepare and deliver a response. Following the receipt of the DO's response, the Council will make a decision. My Ranger didn't bother to check that one of the dogs had been euthanised or that another was kept Queensland. Consequently, we received a Dangerous Dog Declaration for a dead dog and another one for a dog not in NSW. The Temperament Reports for the other two dogs weren't even considered. We were sent another two Dangerous Dog Declarations on two dogs that were demonstrably not dangerous. We also received four infringement notices of $550, one for each dog. In my case, the Ranger had not done his job or fulfilled the requirements of due process under law, either did he meet the expectation of his civil responsibility as a Council Ranger. When I went to Court to appeal the Dangerous Dog Declarations and the Infringement Notices I wasn't challenging the alleged incident, I was counter suing the Ranger for being an indolent and incompetent arse. My advise GT, if someone honestly believes, and knows unequivocally, that their dog is not dangerous they should strenuously object and vigorously protest any such accusations and appeal any such Declarations in Court. Regards

All four of them actually. We we given four Dangerous Dog Declarations. The week before, some crazy from the needle exchange across the road (I live near the Base Hospital), rampaged through the yard and broke all the fences and gates. I found the dogs attending our property when I returned from work and no issues had been reported. But the following weekend (Sunday), the four dogs breached the gate and were at large while I was out. Apparently, they went up to a women, who it turns out had psychiatric issues. The Senior Police Constable who attended said that it was a minor incident but the lady involved was shaken up. The Ranger did not see it that way and declared all four dogs dangerous. It was simply absurd. I appealed the Dangerous Dog Declarations on the grounds that the dogs, either individually or in any number together, are not dangerous. The debarkle that followed as the Council tried to defend the Keystone Kapers of our ex-Ranger would be a comedy of errors if it wasn't so tragic. I euthanised one of my dogs who I mistakenly thought had bitten someone. By the time I discovered that the the Ranger was full of shite it was too late for my beloved puppy girl.

Hi All. I thought it would be a useful exercise to share with others my successful appeal against a Dangerous Dog Declaration. On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, the Local Court upheld my appeal against the Local Council who had issued a Dangerous Dog Declaration against my Maremma. I should point out that the dogs were never dangerous and that the problem stems largely from the current criteria within The Companion Animals Act (1998). However, it did not help to have a Ranger who was an indolent, bungling incompetent. I would be happy to provide more details if they could be of use to anyone else. Tralee